Product Description
In this demonstration of the link between philosophy of science and scientific practice, Warren Schmaus argues that Durkheim's philosophy is crucial to his sociology.Through a reinterpretation of the relation between Durkheim's major philosophical and sociological works, Schmaus argues that Durkheim's sociology is more than a collection of general observations about society--it reflects a richly constructed theory of the meanings and causes of social life.

Schmaus shows how Durkheim sought to make sociology more rigorous by introducing scientific methods of analysis and explanation into the study of society.Durkheim tried to reveal how implicit, commonly held beliefs actually govern people's lives.Through an original interpretation of Durkheim's landmark writings, Schmaus argues that Durkheim, in his empirical studies, refined both the methods of sociology and a theory about society's shared knowledge and practices.

This book opens a new window on the development of Durkheim's thought and demonstrates how a philosophy of science can inspire the rise of a new science. ... Read more

Product Description
In this second edition of Steve Fuller's original work Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge: A New Beginning for Science and Technology Studies, James Collier joins Fuller in developing an updated and accessible version of Fuller's classic volume. The new edition shifts focus slightly to balance the discussions of theory and practice, and the writing style is oriented to advanced students. It addresses the contemporary problems of knowledge to develop the basis for a more publicly accountable science. The resources of social epistemology are deployed to provide a positive agenda of research, teaching, and political action designed to bring out the best in both the ancient discipline of rhetoric and the emerging field of science and technology studies (STS). The authors reclaim and integrate STS and rhetoric to explore the problems of knowledge as a social process--problems of increasing public interest that extend beyond traditional disciplinary resources. In so doing, the differences among disciplines must be questioned (the exercise of STS) and the disciplinary boundaries must be renegotiated (the exercise of rhetoric).


This book innovatively integrates a sophisticated theoretical approach to the social processes of creating knowledge with a developing pedagogical apparatus. The thought questions at the end of each chapter, the postscript, and the appendix allow the reader to actively engage the text in order to discuss and apply its theoretical insights. Creating new standards for interdisciplinary scholarship and communication, the authors bring numerous disciplines into conversation in formulating a new kind of rhetoric geared toward greater democratic participation in the knowledge-making process.


This volume is intended for students and scholars in rhetoric of science, science studies, philosophy, and communication, and will be of interest in English, sociology, and knowledge management arenas as well.
... Read more

Product Description
What is the key to the truth and power of science? Would a theory of everything disprove the soul? Is matter all there is? Can I keep science and my common sense? Can we travel back in time? Is it evolution or creation or …? Will scientists ever make a man? Will we ever create artificial intelligence? If so, what does that say about my worth? What is the ultimate source of our intellectual malaise?Anthony Rizzi, a distinguished physicist, answers these questions and more."What a terrific book!!...The time is now. Philosophers, scientists, and the educated reader will profit enormously from this book." -Ralph McInerny, University of Notre Dame philosophy professor, Gifford Lecturer"There is a pressing need for Anthony Rizzi's book, which reveals the link between science and man's deepest questions in a bold, clear and truthful way. His book is full of insights that readers will relish and want to read again and again to plumb their depths."-Marcus Grodi, host of The Journey Home, EWTN"The Science Before Science ...provides much needed perspective." -Joseph Martin, Chief Scientist, Planetary Science Lab (retired), Lockheed Martin ... Read more

Customer Reviews (13)

Best Cure for "Intellectual Malaise"!
After having read William Wallace's excellent The Modeling of Nature: Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Nature in Synthesis and other solid philosophy of science and physics books, I thought I knew everything there is to know on this subject, but Dr. Rizzi's book has proven me wrong--very wrong! I love it! His style and his precision in identifying what he calls "intellectual malaise" is truly a breath of fresh air for me, a beginning graduate student in physics who has struggled with some of his same early questions and doubts about the whole scientific endeavor itself, like: Is science being conducted properly? What are its aims? What are its limitations? How does science accord with commonsense and reason? Why is science so seemingly disconnected with reality at times? Is subjectivism ingrained into modern science? Etc. etc.

If you have a science background and need an excellent cure to your "intellectual malaise," read Rizzi. He's good. I think it's even better than Dr. Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, which is a good book, but its audience seems to be more the general public.

A Complex and Facinating Book
Anthony Rizzi wrote THE SCIENCE BEFORE SCIENCE which was published in 2004. This book is complex and requires careful reading. Yet, the book is facinating and is clearly written. Those whose knowledge of science, especially physics, and those who are not physicists can appreciate this book. The Institute for Advanced Physics promoted and published book which has been praised by scientists and philosophers. Readers should note that Ancient and Medieval philosophers dealt with metaphysics, ontology, mathematics, and science. In other words, reality and concepts were not as separated as they are in the 21st. century.

Rizzi began this book with the fact that men cannot know everything in spite of what shallow minded populizers claim. For example, Aristotle (384-322 BC) was highly respected by the Medieval Scholastics including St. Thomas Aquinas (115-1274) and Aguinas' great teacher, St. Albertus Magnus (1193-1280).Both men praised Aristotle's work, but both men demonstrated that not all of Aristotle's conclusions were true. During the 20th. century, Albert Einstein (1879-1955)also stated that men cannot know everything.

Rizzzi stated that men must conform their thiinking to reality and that men cannot make reality conform to their ideas and thinking. Rizzi used Kant (1720-1803) as someone who tried to make this point when Kant stated that the impossibility of more than seven planets in the solar system. Yet, astronomical studies proved such a conclusion in error. Bascially Rizzi argued that the more men know, the more men realize what they do not know. Rizzi stated that Ultimate Reality, whatever that is, is too rich to be completely accurately described.

While Rizzi claimed that knowledge is first acquired via the senses, he was clear that not all knowledge was "sensorial." Senses lead to abstract thought (ideas and concepts), and concepts and ideas are realities that cannot be quantified. One example Rizzi used is that of a triangle which requires three lines or sides. A triangle cannot have two sides and still be thought of as a triangle. Rizzi's emphasis on abstract thought dealt with animal life. When some people experimented with apes, Rizzi argued the apes did not engage in sbsract thought but "aped" their trainers (pardon the play on words).

Rizzi provided text and useful diagrams to trace the process of thought. Rizzi used models of physical reality, mathematical thought, and metaphysics. Metaphysics deals with what Rizzi called Being as Being. One of the abstract areas of thought that Rizzi treated was the study of Ethics which he said was the study of what we should do and why. Rizzi disagreed with the materialists in that moral codes, values, etc. are beyond mathematical models and equations. As Rizzi stated, mathematics is the absract study of quantification and nothing else.

Rizzi had interesting comments on energy, light, atomic structure, etc. 20th. century physicists debated whether light confomred to a wave theory or a particle beam theory. As far as the undersigned knows, this debate has not been completely resolved. Rizzi also made effective use of Einstein's suggestion that time and space made physics more "relative" than previously thought.

Rizzi then ventured into the realm of philosophy and theology and their relationship with modern physics and other sciences. Rizzi cited Philoponus (490-570)who disagreed with many of the Ancients that celestial bodies were gods or "angels." Philoponus offered the view that God the Creator set celestial bodies in motion which was a theme of the Medieval Scholastics. One of the debates among the Medieval Scholastics was whether the Cosmos was eternal or had a creative beginning. Rizzi dealt effectively with the complexity of this debate. He cited St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God as Creator. For example, Aquinasused Ariistotle's phrase of an Unmoved Mover. Aquinas also used the phrase of the Uncaused Cause for the Cosmos and Being. Aquinas then used the phrase of the First Intelligence. If there is some order to the Cosmos, Aquinas referred to the phrase of the First Order for a definition of God or Supreme Being. In other words the debate was whether the Cosmoswas created Ex Nihilo (from nothing).

When Hubble observed the expansion of the Universe by measuring what is known as the Red Shift, Aquinas's concepts gain acceptence from some astronomers and physicists. The Big Bang Theory suggested a Creator. An interesting anecdote was the work of Father Lemaitre (1894-1966)who produced a mathematical model of an expanding universe. As the undersinged mentioned elsewhere, Einstein first rejected Lemaitre's work as brilliant mathematics but bad science. However, when Einstein read Hubble's work, Einstein was gracious enough to admit that Father Lemaitre was right after all.

This review is not intended to convince anyone to accept the basic premises of the book. The review is written to suggest to thoughtful men and women that religious and non-religious men and women can intelligently discuss science, theology, philosphy, etc. and learn from each other. Companion books that may interest readers are titled CREATION AND EVOLUTION and Cardinal Schonborn's book titled CHANCE OR PURPOSE. Father Duffy's great book titled QUEEN OF THE SCIENCES deals with some of the topics of THE SCIENCE BEFORE SCIENCE and comments in this review. Father Jaki's (1924-2009)work also merits careful reading. Thoughtful people should read and carefully the book titled THE SCIENCE BEFORE SCIENCE.

James E. Egolf
March 4, 2010

Amazing, packed with Science and Wisdom
Having majored in Neuroscience with a year of lab experience as a research associate, I can say everything I know was represented fairly and accurately in this amazing book. The Science Before Science is packed with the best of modern science and the science before it, philosophy. Dr. Rizzi clearly lays out all the things we know before we come to do modern science, then he elucidates the incredible findings of modern science. In so doing, he demonstrates an uncanny ability to think clearly about modern science and the science before it, revealing his love(philia) of wisdom (sophia). The book is not about history, as one reviewer strangely thought; nor, as the same reviewer even more strangely thought, is it about religion. In fact, that same reviewer appears to demonstrate the modern confusion between knowledge and belief, which Dr. Rizzi lucidly deals with in the first two short chapters! Dr. Rizzi clearly points out that knowledge comes before belief, not the other way around. In fact, much of the book extols the thinking of "pagans" such as Aristotle. We need, as the book reminds us, to trace all our knowledge back to the physical world.

In reading this book one can begin to glimpse how Dr. Rizzi might, as he actually did, solve an 80 year old problem in Einstein's theory of general relativity. If that achievement and this book are any indication of things to come, I can't wait to hear more about his science... and the science before it.

Not Science
This book is not about science.It is religion masking itself as science.A more honest title would have been "The religion before science".I just heard him being interviewed on the Catholic religious channel EWTN and he explained how when human sperm and egg cells join a soul is created/affixed to them.Science doesn't have much to say about religion, Dr. Rizzi should try not saying much about science.I found his description of Koko (the signing gorilla) embarrassing, he kept referring to her as a "he".Dr. Rizzi would have been more believable if he had at least researched the topic enough to learn the gender of the animal that he was describing.

I'm not meaning to attack any religion or philosophy but simply make clear that this book is religious/philosophical and is in no way a history of science as the title alludes.

Good
A nice antidote for those scientists who seem to think that philosophy only consists of Popper's principle of falsifiability. ... Read more

Product Description
Mindware: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science invites readers to join in up-to-the-minute conceptual discussions of the fundamental issues, problems, and opportunities in cognitive science. Written by one of the most renowned scholars in the field, this vivid and engaging introductory text relates the story of the search for a cognitive scientific understanding of mind. This search is presented as a no-holds-barred journey from early work in artificial intelligence, through connectionist (artificial neural network) counter-visions, and on to neuroscience, artificial life, dynamics, and robotics. The journey ends with some wide-ranging and provocative speculation about the complex coadaptive dance between mind, culture, and technology.
Each chapter opens with a brief sketch of a major research tradition or perspective, followed by short yet substantial critical discussions dealing with key topics and problems. Ranging across both standard philosophical territory and the landscape of cutting-edge cognitive science, Clark highlights challenging issues in an effort to engage readers in active debate. Topics covered include mental causation; machine intelligence; the nature and status of folk psychology; the hardware/software distinction; emergence; relations between life and mind; the nature of perception, cognition, and action; and the continuity (or otherwise) of high-level human intelligence with other forms of adaptive response. Numerous illustrations, text boxes, and extensive suggestions for further reading enhance the text's utility. Helpful appendices provide background information on dualism, behaviorism, identity theory, consciousness, and more. An exceptional text for introductory and more advanced courses in cognitive science and the philosophy of mind, Mindware is also essential reading for anyone interested in these fascinating and ever-changing fields. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Great Book, But No Introduction
First, let me say, I took so much from this book. I'm a cognitive science major myself and there were ideas in this book that hadn't ever come to my attention. I would like to say, however, that the chapter on connectionism didn't do the topic justice. Also, the book's chapters on the whole tend to mesh together to build up to the author's personal philosophical paradigm, extended mind hypothesis and largely embodied cognition (which is what most cognitive scientists believe). I find that in doing this, however, the reader misses out on the history and therefore context that these competing paradigms share.

Second, although this is a great book, I'm not sure I could recommend it to a layman audience. For that reason (not being as the title says, an introduction) I deducted one star from the review. However, if there's any philosophers of the mind, psychologists, biologists, or just curious people out there, I'd recommend this book to read for cognitive science (also, it helps a lot, for undergrad cog sci majors to give this a read before entering into your first cogs class).

Great Overview of Cognitive Science
This book was recommended to me by a cognitive scientist researcher at my university as the single best thing I could read to obtain an up-to-date overview of what's going on in cognitive science.The book lived up to this promise.I found it an excellent, scientifically and philosophically informed, treatment of this topic. ... Read more

Product Description

Product Description
In this magisterial work, Roland Omnès takes us from the academies of ancient Greece to the laboratories of modern science as he seeks to do no less than rebuild the foundations of the philosophy of knowledge. One of the world's leading quantum physicists, Omnès reviews the history and recent development of mathematics, logic, and the physical sciences to show that current work in quantum theory offers new answers to questions that have puzzled philosophers for centuries: Is the world ultimately intelligible? Are all events caused? Do objects have definitive locations? Omnès addresses these profound questions with vigorous arguments and clear, colorful writing, aiming not just to advance scholarship but to enlighten readers with no background in science or philosophy.

The book opens with an insightful and sweeping account of the main developments in science and the philosophy of knowledge from the pre-Socratic era to the nineteenth century. Omnès then traces the emergence in modern thought of a fracture between our intuitive, commonsense views of the world and the abstract and--for most people--incomprehensible world portrayed by advanced physics, math, and logic. He argues that the fracture appeared because the insights of Einstein and Bohr, the logical advances of Frege, Russell, and Gödel, and the necessary mathematics of infinity of Cantor and Hilbert cannot be fully expressed by words or images only. Quantum mechanics played an important role in this development, as it seemed to undermine intuitive notions of intelligibility, locality, and causality. However, Omnès argues that common sense and quantum mechanics are not as incompatible as many have thought. In fact, he makes the provocative argument that the "consistent-histories" approach to quantum mechanics, developed over the past fifteen years, places common sense (slightly reappraised and circumscribed) on a firm scientific and philosophical footing for the first time. In doing so, it provides what philosophers have sought through the ages: a sure foundation for human knowledge.

Quantum Philosophy is a profound work of contemporary science and philosophy and an eloquent history of the long struggle to understand the nature of the world and of knowledge itself. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (8)

No substance - a log of history
All throughout the book there is chronic references to the founding fathers of the physics, mathematics and philosophy - no doubt a good coverage - however no original thought. The author rebelliously (only apparent towards the end of the book) tries to refute the most accepted *candidates* for interpretation of quantum mechanics. And tries to offer the rebuttal to the founding fathers of Quantum Mechanic like Bohr, to put forward his naive interpretation. It is not his caliber to attempt this. In all there is no substance to this book, but only a historical log of advances in mathematics, philosophy and physics. Worst of all, again towards the end, one will see the author has an agenda - and yes certainly influenced by his religion.

Destined to be a classic
Quite simply, this may be one of the best books in recent history,
on quantum theory and its role in the philosophy of science.The
author, admirably, does not insult his reader by leaving out the
important mathematics needed to make quantum theory comprehensible.
Neither are mathematical models left to speak for themselves; rather,
the meaning of the theory is carefully and skillfully guided through
the abstract symbols.

Honors should also go to translator.One never feels that this easy
to read book was ever written in any language but English.

Healing the Fractures
Professor Omnes (University of Paris XI) is one of France's noted experimental physicists today. "Quantum Philosophy" is a poetic narrative of science from Ancient Greece to contemporary Quantum Mechanics is written with literary elegance which Arturo Sangalli's translation has preserved.

Although there are no equations, this book is not for the beginner. Omnes alludes to people, theories, events and ideas, which if not already known would remain quite mysterious. For the informed philosopher of science it is an insightful account of the main developments leading up to 20th Century formalism and the triumph of mathematics which was necessary to heal the fracture brought about by the post-intuitive sciences of Einstein, Bohr, Godel, Cantor and Hilbert.

Probable futures...
Roland Omnes is a professor of physics at the University of Paris.Like many physicists and astronomers of our time, he is concerned about the interpretations of science among the general public, particularly as science becomes increasingly specialized and difficult for non-mathematically and non-scientifically trained persons to understand.There are many areas of misunderstanding in the general conception of physics, with the cutting-edge theories developing out of the strands of relativity and quantum physics that even physicists themselves have trouble understanding and explaining.

Omnes does a good job in the first half of the text tracing an historical development of physics from the earliest, pre-Socratic times in ancient Greece, a time when philosophy and science were not readily separable (a time that is re-emerging in many ways) through to the triumph of science, with physics in the forefront, as a worldview acceptable to Enlightenment thinkers, general academia, and the public at large.The first several chapters each take a turn at this broad topic - a chapter on classical logic comes first, looking in much the way a geometrist might the underlying postulate and axioms of later thought.Omnes then discusses classical physics and astronomy , leading up from the Greeks to Kepler, Newton, and finally Maxwell and his electro-magnetism theories.

The third chapter looks at the historical development of classical mathematics, and the fourth at the philosophy of knowledge, not exclusively but primarily in epistemological terms.Figures such as Bacon, Descartes, Locke, Hume and Kant are discussed here.The history of mathematics and epistemology has a profound if understated effect on later scientific development.

The second primary section deals with what Omnes terms `the fracture'.In discussing the processes of formal mathematics, logic, and physics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, he brings up the trouble-spots - Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, varying philosophies in mathematics, relativistic challenges to classical physics models, and the increasing problem of epistemology in the processes of mathematics and science.To what extent are concerns about interpretation valid?Omnes discusses the importance of interpretation as justified for three reasons - that quantum mechanics `could not be more obscure' (and thus in need of interpretative illumination); the idea of who (or what) the observer is, is no longer clear in modern thinking; and, the issues of probability must be reconciled to the reality of existence.

The third primary section is the heart of Omnes' argument.Going beyond the `traditional' quantum theory, he introduces the idea of consistent histories.Omnes argues strongly for a common sense approach (citing John Bell, among others); physics is about physicality, and reality is that which emerges from the structure of the laws of physics and mathematics, a construct Omnes opts to call in a term laced with theological overtones, the Logos.However, this logical construct, deriving from the general laws of nature, cannot be free from the influence of probability.

The final section of the book looks at key questions and topics - how can we define science?What is the proper methodology for science, mathematics and the theory of knowledge in terms how we can know things in a probability-laced, quantum age?How does common sense play a factor in the way things progress from here?

Omnes puts the current state as being able to summarized in three points:logic is part of the world of matter, not a subject merely of our consciousness; that we have enough knowledge now to understand the laws of reality in a common sense manner; and finally, that we can acknowledge the ultimate separation of theory from reality.Beginning in this way, Omnes presents a tentative theory of knowledge destined to influence scientists and philosophers in the future.

Omnes presents his discussion with a minimum of mathematical equations, preferring once again to incorporate his common sense approach even to his own writing.Those who are knowledgeable in the hard sciences and mathematics will find this book intriguing; those without such a background will still find this a useful and sometimes inspiring text.

Christian physics...
From page 241 of the hardcover edition--

"On tackling this kind of subject, even briefly, one must clearly show his true colors. Thus, I, the author, call myself a Christian, though my preferences in matters of belief are closer to Nicholas de Cues' [sic--Cusa?]"Docta Ignorantia" than to Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" or Karl Barth's "Dogmatik". By this personal note I wished to assure my Christian friends that the targets of my criticism are only certain thoughtless proselytes."

Speaking of "thoughtless proselytes," how about moving that confession up to the Preface so the reader will know the entire volume is biased? ... Read more

Product Description

As the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) has become more established, it has increasingly hidden its philosophical roots. While the trend is typical of disciplines striving for maturity, Steve Fuller, a leading figure in the field, argues that STS has much to lose if it abandons philosophy.

In his characteristically provocative style, he offers the first sustained treatment of the philosophical foundations of STS and suggests fruitful avenues for further research. With stimulating discussions of the Science Wars, the Intelligent Design Theory controversy, and theorists such as Donna Haraway and Bruno Latour, Philosophy of Science and Technology Studies is required reading for students and scholars in STS and the philosophy of science.

Customer Reviews (1)

A Call to Arms
Steve Fuller doesn't pull any punches in this book, which is mainly addressed to philosophers who have simply dismissed science and technology studies as mere "relativism." Fuller does a very good job showing the philosophical depth of the field, in both positivism and more recent postmodern thought. He clearly doesn't like Latour who is dissected on theoretical and methodological grounds here. He also doesn't seem to like "research ethics," and folds that discussion into the ongoing Science Wars, especially the Sokal Hoax. A point he repeatedly stresses is the difference between the incompetent and the controversial, and that most allegations of incompetence on the part of science and technology studies people are really attempts to prevent controversy from erupting on genuinely open terrain. His most controversial example of this point appears in the last chapter, on intelligent design. In the end, one has to say that Fuller is the most thoroughgoing "democrat" in his conception of science one is likely to run across, even in this field. ... Read more

Product Description
For centuries, humankind has tried to navigate between scientific and spiritualconceptions of reality often without much success. In the resultant confusion scientists philosophers and theologians have pondered and argued-yet the separation remains. Norman Friedman correlates the quantum physics of David Bohm with the Perennial Philosophy described by Aldous Huxley and the spiritual insights of the channelled entity known as Seth to show how a single reality emerges from seemingly contradictory perspectives-a brilliant synthesis. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

take your pick
A synopsis of the writings of one of the all-time great physicists, David Bohm, sets the tone for the synthesis of what seem to be radically different forms of knowledge.It takes concentration to stay with what Bohm has put forth, but if the effort is forthcoming, the results are more than worth it.Wholeness and the implicate order are the bottom line.

Wholeness and the implicate order are repeated in physics, philosophy, and the psychic.All three say essentially the same thing.We are used to structuring our reality based on agreement.When several people agree that something happened, there is consensual validity.Consensual validity means that we believe what happened actually happened, it's real.This belief is our reality.We can end up at the end of this book with a consensual world view which is quite different from what we held before reading this book.

Many of us take physics pretty seriously and use physics to help us structure our reality.In other words, we give credibility to what physics has to say.However, psychic phenomena are often not given the same credibility.Weird psychic phenomena such as "channeling" are more often than not dismissed out of hand.So we make judgements about what we accept as credible and what we do not as we construct our reality.

This book presents us with the task of re-evaluating our judgements regarding what we accept and what we reject in the construction of our reality.The question is: What do we do when both physics and the psychic say the SAME THING??Do we continue with our acceptance of physics and rejection of the psychic even though they both say the same thing?Do we bag physics and go for the psychic?Do we say that this is too confusing to make any sense out of?Or.Do we opt for consensual validity and accept that both physics and the psychic are real?

It is fascinating that we can go both ways.We can use physics to understand the psychic.Or.We can use the psychic to understand physics.Either way.Take your pick.We end up at the same place!For those who prefer mathematics, go for David Bohm.For those who prefer the psychic, go for "Seth".For those who prefer eastern philosophy, go for Ken Wilber.Everybody ends up at the same place.And WHAT a place it is!It's whole, not segmented.It's unified, not divided!It's infinite, not limited!It continually changes, it's not fixed!We're all together, not separated!

So here we have a book, written by an engineer, which is spiritually up-lifting in a way which is difficult to match.

a book that found me
i bought this book from a street vendor in new york where ordinarily there are never books and ordinarily i never walk. i had a feeling the book was finding me as much as i was finding it. i point this out because this does not occur with books which cannot impact you.

i won't ignore the gaps or issues others have raised regarding the text. what matters is that, a year later, i remember the unmistakeable sense of there being a higher unity of things than we typically experience or conceive. friedman interrelates david bohm's quantum mechanics (implicate and explicate order), jane roberts' seth seances and the perennial philosophy.

i do not believe seth is a spirit but roberts' muse. i am not hanging on every word like a fish on a hook. but we see emerging the idea that our science, our philosophy and our faith ultimately point to a singular reality we develop towards without knowing it.

friedman was a millionaire in industry before he wrote either of his books (the hidden domain). this is a man who wanted more than what the daily world offered. and this is what he found.

A very frustrating read
I bought this book after reading the other two excellent reviews. Well, it was a big waste of money for me. The book was not written in a clear, easy to follow manner. It should be rewritten in half the number of pages. Rather go for "From Science to God" by Peter Russell.

A Must Read
A must read.Answers many questions that are repeatedly raised in other bokks on simular topics. Freidman does not waste paper....he provides insights to the last line of the last page...
.

Opens the mind so wide it creates a permanent draft inside !
Where to start ? To get 5 stars, a book must really satisfy many criterias, and this one certainly does.

Its author, Mr. Friedman, deserve among others to be recognized as a brillant pedagogue. The topic iscomplex but the text is clear and the simple words well chosen, like in hisother excellent book: The Hidden Domain.As a reader you are able to thinkfully about the concepts expressed, without wasting any concentration onsentences analysis.Depending on your learning style, you may prefer likeI did the tape version: it lets you think with your eyes closed.

You mayhave enjoyed David Bohm's unusual interpretations of our world through hismaster knowledge of quantum physics.You may have been puzzled by JaneRoberts connection with thestrange entity Seth.In Bridging Science andSpirit, not only do you get a summary of the most important andphilosophical aspects of the above, you are also launched into suchpowerful explanations of the physical roots of our world that some wildimagination may be needed to fully grasp them.

This book makes you thinkand almost not believing yourself the potentials of what your mind istrying to visualize: this is why I found the book outstanding. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

All empiriological scientists should read this.
This book contains an excellent balance of history and philosophy of science. It and Dr. Wolfgang Smith's The QuantumEnigma make an excellent set of resources that every modern empiriological scientist should read in order to understand how to do science within a solid philosophical framework.

Excellent synthesis
Fr Wallace has an wonderful little gem here. Reflecting his experience both as a physicist and a philospher in the tradition of Aquinas and Aristotle, Wallace demonstrates how Aristotelian philosophy of nature, that of form, prime matter, powers, etc. coalesces nicely with the current understanding of modern physics, biology, and chemistry. One need not be a science or philosophy major to follow Wallace; he does a very good job of relating scientific and philosophical concepts in a manner that makes them interesting to the layperson. Highly recommended for anyone interested in how ancient and medieval philosophy coincides with the discoveries of science and modern physics.

The Expert Scientist
William Wallace presents himself and science, philosophy, physics, and astronomy very well in this book.I can only imagine how many years of research it took to find all the information.There are five main sections to the first part of the book.In part 1, the Philosophy of Nature, Wallace explains how power comes from different parts of nature.Those being vegetative, animal, human and physical.Nature itself is in the form but Wallace's main historian in chapter one is Aristoltle.The four causes of every sensible reality are matter, form, agent and end.Nature acts towards an end.In chapter 2, Modeling the inorganic, Wallacefirst tries to describe the difference between an atom and a molecule.We are elements and compounds just like every other thing is on the earth, wether inorganic or organic.All of the elements in the periodic table are composed of the same elementary particles.Cosmology tells us how th universe came to be, which started with a certain protomatter.In chapter 3, Plant and animal structures, Wallace goes on to speak of species:are actula natural kinds thgat result from processes at work in nature and are therefore manifestations of nature itself.All living organisms derive their energy from the sun, and then metabolize, and engage in the essential feature of all living things-homeostasis.Also, there are added powers when organic (living) things come into play.Reproductive power, developmental power, homeostatic power and metabolic control.Animal powers go on to include external senses, internal senses, behavioral response and motor power. Chapter 4, the Modeling of the Mind, tries to emphasize that the use of mental representations is essential to understanding cognitive processes in animals and humans.Knowing has both an objective and subjective character. Aristotle's four internal senses: the central (common sense), the imagination, estiminative sense and memory are all part of the higher human powers.Chapter 5, Human nature, describes the only two faculties that make humans different from animals.The Intelect and the will.Part two of the entire text really is the magnificent part-years of research, organizing and selection have seemingly gone into trhe generation of this text.Chapter 6, Defining the philosophy of science, names all the idea makers of science chronologically.Bacon, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Whewell, J.S. Mill, Mach, Pierce, Poincare, Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, Harvey, Newton etc.Chapters 8, 9, and 10 go deeper into proving the earth is round, how ellipses are formed, motion parallax and many other astonomical measures.Wallace truly proves that he is a philosopher of science-debating, cutting up, agreeing with the many different thinkers our time has allowed.How much longer canthe earth take all of this? ... Read more

Product Description
The world didn't end on 10 September 2008, but the possibility may have got you thinking: is science creating more problems than it is solving? What is the point of science actually? Geoffrey Gorham considers these questions and explores the social and ethical implications of science by linking them to the most important issues facing scientists today including intelligent design, the Large Hadron Collider, ADHD, the prospect of human extinction, space colonization, and more. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

A solid introduction
There are now plenty of good introductions to the philosophy of science available, and I would say that this one by Geoffrey Gorham is among the better ones, especially for general readers (ie, outside the classroom setting).Though the book is only introductory, Gorham covers the main ideas, and he does so clearly, even with topics which are usually difficult to understand.Here is an outline of the book:

- The book begins with a short Introduction which briefly describes the scope and aims of philosophy and philosophy of science.

- Chapter 1 provides a history of Western science up through the scientific revolution, emphasizing philosophical aspects, and thus connecting "natural philosophy" with contemporary philosophy of science.

- Chapter 2 focuses on the difficult question of how to distinguish science versus non-science, with emphasis on Popper's falsifiability criterion for demarcation.Intelligent design and string theory are presented as case studies.

- Chapter 3 is about "the scientific method," thus covering topics such as induction, deduction, empiricism, rationalism, and Kuhn's perspective on scientific paradigms and revolutions.

- Chapter 4 is about the "aims of science," or what we can hope to achieve with science, and the focus is on varieties of scientific realism and anti-realism.

- Chapter 5 delves into the controversial (some would say bedeviling) area of the social dimensions of science, and so a fairly diverse set of topics is explored, such as constructivism, feminist perspectives, and the relationships between science and human values.

- Chapter 6 is about the future of humanity, as might be forecast based mainly on our understanding of science and its history.Much of this chapter is interesting, but I have to say that I found it odd for this chapter to be included in a book on philosophy of science, to the extent that it might have made more sense to leave this chapter out entirely.But I won't go as far as to deduct a star from my rating of the book.

- The book concludes with detailed suggestions for further reading.

Overall, I recommend this book to anyone who has little or no background in philosophy of science, but has a strong interest in philosophy and/or science.And those who have a significant background in philosophy of science may also enjoy reading the book for the purpose of review (the topic is certainly worthy of regular reviews). ... Read more

Product Description
This Introduction introduces readers to the concepts of political philosophy: authority, democracy, freedom and its limits, justice, feminism, multiculturalism, and nationality. Accessibly written and assuming no previous knowledge of the subject, it encourages the reader to think clearly and critically about the leading political questions of our time. THe book first investigates how politcial philosophy tackles basic ethical questions such as 'how should we live together in society?' It furthermore looks at political authority, discusses the reasons society needs politics in the first place, explores the limitations of politics, and asks if there are areas of life that shouldn't be governed by politics. Moreover, the book explores the connections between political authority and justice, a constant theme in political philosophy, and the ways in which social justice can be used to regulate rather than destroy a market economy. In his travels through this realm, Miller covers why nations are the natural units of government and wonders if the rise of multiculturalism and transnational co-operation will change all this, and asks in the end if we will ever see the formation of a world government. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

short on contemporary and alternative/critical theorists
I've just been skimming the book I picked up from the library, but I'm quite disappointed not to find in the indexany of the following names who represent thinkers from the critical theory, Continental, communitarian traditions: Adorno, Habermas, MacIntyre, Strauss, etc. True, Miller has very little room to work with, but with an introductory book like this I like to get a lay of the land and a sense of how key (contemporary) thinkers think. I suspect Miller does a good job of laying out the main issues in the main, liberal tradition of Western thought, including what relatively recent thinkers (he seems to cover Isaiah Berlin well) have to say on these topics.

I would recommend saving up for John Christman's _Social and Political Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction_ rather than getting this book.

A good summary of western political philosophy
I have to disagree with the other reviewer. Overall this is a pretty objective overview of mainstream political philosophy covering Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, social contract theory, justice, liberty, freedom, feminism, Marx and so on. Miller's method of asking childish, almost infantile, questions about the possibility of modern democracy, global justice, and freedom opens up some very interesting avenues of inquiry (childish questions are the mark of a true philosopher). Additionally Miller's emphasis on modern-day human rights, multiculturalism and social justice work to give this introduction a needed humanist perspective against the often canonistic regurgitation of detached text-book philosophy which one often finds in broad introductory texts of this kind. I recommend this introduction for those just starting philosophy or politics and want an interesting overview of Western political philosophy. If you truly want to see a politically bias Short Introduction (as a point of comparison) try reading Kenneth Minoque's Politics: A Very Short Introduction. He pretty much adheres to a dogmatically neoliberal position throughout the books 112 pages.


"But do nations really exist? Or are they not just imagined but entirely imaginary? Is there anything that genuinely differentiates the people who live on one side of the national boundary from their counterparts on the other side? Dean Inge once said that 'a nation is a society united by a delusion about its ancestry and by a common hatred of its neighbours'. Like most good quotations, this one contains more than a grain of truth."

- Miller on Nation states p.114

...
My review of this book will be very short: It should be titled "David Miller's Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction". I bought the book expecting to be introduced to political philosophy, but I find that I have learned more about Miller's opinions (however mainstream) than political philosophy itself. It's like trying to learn from a salesman rather than a teacher--you will learn something, but it's still annoying. The caliber of the Very Short Introduction series is generally higher. ... Read more

Product Description
In addition to being one of the world's most influential philosophers, Aristotle can also be credited with the creation of both the science of biology and the philosophy of biology.The papers collected in this volume, written by a preeminent figure in the field of Aristotle's philosophy and biology, examine Aristotle's approach to biological inquiry and explanation, his concepts of matter, form and kind, and his teleology. Gathering important essays written over a span of twenty years, this volume will be of special value to historians of science and philosophers of science. ... Read more

Product Description
Explores deep intimate personal relationships between men and women. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (6)

Answers for close cross-gender friends
I have been interested in cross-gender friendships for the past few years, having developed two close friendships myself and wanting to better understand the dynamics.I just finished reading the book and found it very insightful, providing examples of famous xgf's and discussions of xgf-related philosophical thinking.It definitely will provide support and some answers/ideas for those who are trying to make sense of this type of non-romantic relationship.

Abundant hope for relationships.
Thanks to the boldness of authors, John R. Scudder and Anne H. Bishop, for breaking through our cultural barrier and beginning a dialog regarding male/female relationships in addition to the relationship commitment of marriage.The overall reading of this book was a supportive and validating experience.The author's intellectual, spiritual, and sensitive presentation has provided a much-needed voice that testifies to a non-destructive relationship they have described as, dialogical love.

When we discovered Beyond Friendship and Eros, although it seemed the authors were sharing much of our own experience, it left us with questions regarding how they managed to integrate such a relationship into their marriage partnership.The byproduct ofJack and Anne's unselfishdialogical connection has not only enriched us personally, but it's truth has also been projected into the world; offering challenging, yet affirming interactions with family, an energetic involvement in work, and evidence of their compassionate ministries.

This book underscores the definition of friendship, but what about Eros?The psychological definition is-- the sum of all instincts for self-preservation. Our like experiences of self-preservation and enrichment has proven that, beyond friendship and Eros, there indeed is an abundant experience whereby, one can relate to a person of the opposite sex in a way that creates new life...albeit not in body, certainly in SPIRIT.

Disappointing Drivel
The authors spend too much time defending themselves.No real examination of the friendships that do exist between men and women.The omission of any real disclosure of how the authors' spouses view this friendship is in itself revealing.

Bland writing...
Not to mention the fact the authors seemed to write the book to convince themselves that their close relationship was "okay". I didn't really like the conversational structure of the book, and it was annoying when they brought up a philosopher before giving the reader any idea of what they were going to talk about. A letdown that isn't in touch with the younger generation. (The authors are in the 50+'s range).

Must read
In our liberal and pluralist society, surely any kind of loving relationship is acceptable?Not so, argue Scudder and Bishop in this well-thought, engaging book.The authors open our eyes to the prejudice they have encountered in their relationship with each other: male and female, friends, but by no means 'just friends'.

The book is implicitly a celebration of that relationship: the dialogue format draws you into the conversation and discussion, and gives the warm feeling that you're chatting to the authors over a cup of coffee - complete with the occasional affectionate bicker.However, the friendliness has not compromised the academic rigor - we analyse thinkers from Plato to Lewis and Buber as the authors struggle to find terms that will express their relationship.Analogous relationships in popular culture and real life past and present are examined with insight and sensitivity.

'Beyond Friendship and Eros' describes not just their journey, but the journey of all who have pursued 'unrecognised relationships'.It spoke my life and my doubts, and assured me that I was not alone.I have always hated the phrase 'just friends', and felt present terminology to be inadequate for describing my relationships.Reading this brought me great joy and inspiration.

To read this book is to read about love, and to share in the authors' love for one another, and will undoubtedly drive you to deeper and more fulfilling personal relationships of all types.A most compelling and unforgettable accomplishment. ... Read more

Product Description
Striving to boldly redirect the philosophy of science, this book by renowned philosopher Philip Kitcher examines the heated debate surrounding the role of science in shaping our lives. Kitcher explores the sharp divide between those who believe that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is always valuable and necessary--the purists--and those who believe that it invariably serves the interests of people in positions of power. In a daring turn, he rejects both perspectives, working out a more realistic image of the sciences--one that allows for the possibility of scientific truth, but nonetheless permits social consensus to determine which avenues to investigate. He then proposes a democratic and deliberative framework for responsible scientists to follow.

Controversial, powerful, yet engaging, this volume will appeal to a wide range of readers. Kitcher's nuanced analysis and authoritative conclusion will interest countless scientists as well as all readers of science--scholars and laypersons alike. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

Thoughtful and Somewhat Mistaken; 3.5 Stars
This concise and clear book is an extended essay examining the role of science in democratic societies.Kitcher is a well known philosopher of science and this book is an attempt to move philosophical investigations of science as a general phenomenon beyond the relatively narrow epistemic concerns of most philosophy of science.Despite the relative brevity of this book, Kitcher has a relatively ambitious agenda.He wishes to examine the epistemic credentials of science of an enterprise, to explore the consequences of the epistemic reliability of science in terms of its social functions, and to sketch out the proper way democracies should deal with science.Kitcher is particularly concerned with steering a valid course between 2 opposing, almost caricature positions; the view that science has virtually unique moral value and is largely insulated from social influences and the view that science has weak epistemic foundations with the research agenda and results driven by pragmatic and authoritarian concerns.

Kitcher espouses what he terms modest realism; a definite endorsement of the epistemic validity of science with a strong fallibalist orientation.The section of the book in which he deals with attacks on the epistemic validity of science is one of the strongest portions and his fallibalist realism is a strong position.Kitcher, however, suggests that while the methods and achievements of science are definitely valid, the choice of research problems and programs is, however, driven strongly by other concerns.In this sense, Kitcher sees science as hardly insulated from social and personal concerns and in important senses capable of being manipulated in potentially sinister ways.Kitcher is very concerned with the ways in which science and scientific knowledge may be abused to the disadvantage of disadvantaged members of society.Kitcher attacks the idea of the moral purity of scientific investigation and the highly arbitrary (and really impossible to defend) distinction between science and technology.Kitcher's proposed approach is what he calls "well-ordered" science in which selection of research programs, the actual selection of individual projects, and use of knowledge generated would be the subject of some form of inclusive deliberative democracy to ensure socially appropriate scientific investigation.I want to stress that Kitcher is no starry-eyed idealist, this is not a serious reform proposal but rather an intellectual device to measure how far we are away from a really democratic approach to science, an intellectually useful instrument.This brief sketch doesn't do justice to Kitcher's careful development of his arguments, including some useful examples.One example used is the experience of the human genome project, whose development and governance Kitcher demonstrates as violating his concepts of well-ordered science.

Kitcher's arguments, however, are problematic in several respects.Its hard to disagree with the general proposition that pragmatic and social concerns influence the selection of research problems and sometimes how science is practiced. Kitcher takes this argument too far.As an example of pragmatic approaches to science he gives the example of different methods of taxonomic classification in animals and prokaryotes, pointing out the use of the biological species concept (BSC) for the former and molecular methods for the latter.But, these differences are more epistemically based than Kitcher's discussion implies.How much sense does the BSC make for organisms with high rates of horizontal gene transfer?If the taxonomy example is representative of Kitcher's conception of how scientific practice is driven by pragmatic, strictly extra-scientific concerns, then Kitcher's emphasis is misplaced.Kitcher points also to the historical variation in choice of research problems as an example of how science is influenced by strictly extra-scientific issues.But, one of the most important determinants of selection of research problems is the knowledge and theory generated by prior scientific investigations.The issue of the origin of the universe became a major scientific issue only after Einstein's development of General Relativity Theory.It seems likely that science as an enterprise is driven more by internal concerns than Kitcher's discussion implies and has a greater degree of autonomy than his model suggests.

Kitcher's concern about the abuse of science and the potential for negative impacts on the disadvantaged does him credit but may also be misplaced.As pointed out recently by the historian Naomi Oreskes, this is not the major recent problem with science and science policy.The biggest recent social conflict related to science has been the unwillingness of major interest groups in our society to accept the unpalatable consequences of major scientific findings.The present and likely future consequences of environmental problems, particularly anthropogenic global warming, resulted in major efforts to discredit both the general conclusions and some of the individual investigators involved.Since the most severe consequences of climate change will fall upon the poor in poorer nations, this is a direct counter-example to his concerns about the abuse of science.The discovery of anthropogenic global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain, among others, are massive challenges to traditional models of social and economic organization, and have been resisted bitterly by conservative forces.Again, this is solid evidence that science has a good deal more autonomy than Kitcher's model indicates.

Kitcher also argues that science, as a general activity, does not deserve a uniquely privileged status.He has a strong argument based essentially on the difficulty of constructing a consensus view of human values.Fair enough, but from a more pragmatic and historical point of view, its very clear that providing scientists with generous funding and considerable freedom in running the scientific enterprise has consistently yielded great dividends.In the weakest part of the book, Kitcher tries to argue that the evidence for the consistent benefits of science is poorly developed.Its not too strong to call this part of Kitcher's book rubbish.Given Kitcher's general level of rigor, this is a rather surprising and disappointing argument.

Finally, I share Kitcher's high regard for open, democratic, "deliberative" procedures.In this context, its worth mentioning that one of few institutions in our society that uses such procedures successfully are grant application review panels for NIH, NSF, and other funding agencies (including some private foundations that fund research).In this respect, and in some others, our democracy would be improved substantially by making public life more like science.

logic book
I recieved everything it said it would be... on time !

the book was a logic book... be warned...

Well written, engaging, but with a fundamental oversight
Philip Kitcher again shines as a well informed philosopher of science. This book can be regarded as a sequel to his magnum opus _The Advancement of Science_. It deals with the relativists and antirealists quite well, though does presuppose some familiarity with these debates.

However, I find that Kitcher's new position on the nature of science and its relations to society at large suffers from an apparently glaring oversight. He tells us that those who have a stake in the outcome of scientific research should have a say in how it should proceed, be funded, etc.

Since we have long known (and Kitcher himself is aware of the fact) that the outcome of basic scientific research is unknown, i.e. we do not know what position (if any) it will affect, we cannot realistically adopt Kitcher's suggestion. His proposal is emmently sensible in technology, where the goal is not to know but to change or prevent change. But the history of science shows that the proposal of making basic science sensitive to people's interests _that_ way will not work. Further, it is vague, even if it could be done: how do we determine the effect? Christian conservatives like Philip Johnson would curtail or slow research into evolution because he feels it is socially undermining; biologists and
other scientists (rightly) regard this as distressing. Science *should* puncture illusions, as Kitcher points out happens. On the other hand,if the "say" is simply to be a sort of "gripe session" where people can say their piece to scientists, this is a recipe for squabble, or worse, just ignoring people, which is the (perceived) problem in the management of science now.
(I think actually that the insistence from some that science is alienating because it is undemocratic is wrong, but that's another story.)

One should not read this book, however, without a grasp of some of the issues this review sort of brings up. As another reviewer said it is sort of for the academic. I wish that weren't so: but sometimes we academics have to debate amongst ourselves a bit first, before popularizations come out. Of course this is just some of the same concerns again ... and around we go.

Waving a flag and kissing a baby...
Kitcher oozes reasonableness, and so I reach for my wallet. If the best course of action was always to split the difference between two extremes, then Kitcher would be the Solomon of science policy. Unfortunately, divisions in the real world do not correspond to the poles of philosophical disagreements. This is one for the seminar room, not the corridors of power.

What the world needs now is this book.
I am impressed with Kitcher, actually stunned. This book needs to be read by every politician in office. The fact that our government does in fact function much better than middle east gov's is due to separation of church and state, but now what we need is to really incorporate that idea, especially with a little more truth. The science of life is accepted as Kitcher mentions as irrefutable by all, but the truth of it is jet lag, not really here. I say yes, read this book, to anyone. I want to recommend another book very similar to this but in entertaining format which puts this subject across well, SB 1 or God By Karl Maddox. ... Read more

Product Description
Historians of science often acknowledge the academic status of astrology in the early modern period, but mostly fail to explore its relation with other disciplines and its role in society. This book seeks to fill that gap.

The first part of the book examines the practices and functions that shaped late medieval astrology, and relates how its academic status became discredited, both in northern Italy and the Low Countries. The second part of the book examines various counter-strategies of astrological reform, and shows how these ultimately failed to restore public trust in academic astrology.

This book provides a new level of detail to the history of astrology. It also establishes important new links with other fields, like the history of universities, humanism, astronomy, medicine, and instrument building. ... Read more

Product Description
In this timely work, Russell, philosopher, agnostic, mathematician, and renowned peace advocate, offers a brief yet insightful study of the conflicts between science and traditional religion during the last four centuries. Examining accounts in which scientific advances clashed with Christian doctrine or biblical interpretations of the day, from Galileo and the Copernican Revolution, to the medical breakthroughs of anesthesia and inoculation, Russell points to the constant upheaval and reevaluation of our systems of belief throughout history. In turn, he identifies where similar debates between modern science and the Church still exist today. Michael Ruse's new introduction brings these conflicts between science and theology up to date, focusing on issues arising after World War II.

This classic is sure to interest all readers of philosophy and religion, as well as those interested in Russell's thought and writings. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (10)

A Quick History Lesson
Of the books I've read by Russell so far I think he is the easiest on religion here. I see two reasons for this. One, he never talks about sexual repression which is the subject that consistently gets him riled up about the church, and two, at the time this was written (1935) he was optimistic that the days of Christianity fighting progress were behind us and saw the real threats coming from the state. He was keenly aware that the governments of Russia, Germany and, to a lesser extent, his own Britain were throwing their citizens' freedoms under the bus. His later work shows that he later abandoned the optimism he had towards Christianity, but the important thing to remember is that he was pretty darn optimistic here.

The nice thing about the book is Bertrand doesn't particularly take a stand on whether or not religion and science are incompatible. Indeed his optimism about the future of Christianity suggests that at the time of this writing he thought that they could coexist. The first half is really just a history of instances when the church determined that science was incompatible with its teachings. The first few chapters are each dedicated to a specific scientific discovery the the church ardently opposed, often with the power of the state and serious threats against the scientists involved. This included discoveries like that the sun was the center of the solar system, that the earth was not a mere 6,000 years old and that the strata of rocks not only pointed to a very, very old earth, but did not show any evidence of a worldwide flood. He briefly mentions evolution, but doesn't seem to realize just how troublesome it would continue to be to many religious people.

Later chapters move away from the structure of relating the history of science being repressed by the church. This is of course because the church no longer had the power or, in Russell's opinion, the inclination to directly oppose science. Instead he focuses on religious schools of thought (not necessarily Christian) that are ideologically incompatible certain scientific thought. There's a chapter on determinism and the threat it poses to the doctrine of damnation (though it should be mentioned that Russell makes it clear that right now there is no way to know if determinism does in fact describe the movements of all things). Then he discusses mysticism and cosmic purpose. Sadly, because these two concepts really describe countless subsets of belief I found the chapters insufficient to really address them completely.

He finishes off with a chapter addressing the popular criticism of science that it doesn't say anything about morality. He did an excellent job talking about how, while technically true this doesn't mean that dependence on science will lead to immorality. Quite the contrary. He dismisses the idea of intrinsic morality and a conscience as illusions covering up the fact that morality is learned. Ultimately he ends up breaking down exactly what subjective morality is. He's 100 percent in step with The Ethics Of Spinoza though he more fully addresses the real world effect of a world where each person has their own personal morality which may in some ways contradict his fellows'. If nothing else that chapter alone deserves a read as it is the most complete and concise treatment of community and ethics I have come across.

The reason I made a fuss at the beginning of this review about Russell's relatively lenient attitude toward religion here and the fact that he himself does not declare religion and science incompatible is because of the introduction that was given to this book. It was written by Michael Ruse and by the time I had finished it I was certain that he hadn't read a word of Russell prior to getting the gig writing his intro. And after reading the book I'm not sure Ruse ever got around to reading this one either. He seems to think that it is Russell that asserts science and religion cannot coexist when Russell only recounts instances in which religion sees science as incompatible with itself, mostly in the past. To make matters worse Ruse doesn't seem to have a clue what either Russell or Spinoza thought of ethics, though that doesn't stop him from claiming that without religious morality Hitler's actions cannot be considered immoral. This is of course ludicrous since the entire basis of both Russell's and Spinoza's "good" is the fulfillment of the well-being of the individual and his community. It doesn't take a genius to know that the Nazis acted to annihilate the well-being of millions of people for the benefit of a few. I was stupefied that someone so ignorant of Russell and his ideas was given the task of writing his intro, it's really quite shameful. I've never come across such a poorly researched introduction before in my life.

A Quality Look at the History of Religion and Science
Bertrand Russell reflects on the conflicts of science and religion by outlining the history of each.Although Russell is a renowned critical thinker and agnostic proponent of science, his presentation is closer to a historical account rather than a one-sided argument.He finds faults and praise for both science and religion and views their respective conflicts in relation to the thought process of societies at their respective time periods.

Religion has been mainstream for at least two millenniums and as Russell points out it has only been in the last two centuries that science has gained considerable influence.For two thousand years even Aristotle's views on falling objects was considered unquestionably valid until simple scientific experiments proved his faulty lines of reason.The history of religion has also evolved throughout the ages, but unlike science there are no definitive tests that influence the lines of reason, there are only common accepted beliefs and faiths.Russell asserts it is this difference that is as the core of the conflict of between science and religion; a clash made most famous by Galileo's persecution for his pronouncement that the earth was not the center of the universe.

Russell's' philosophical views are as relevant today as in the early parts of the 20th century when this piece was written.He capably conveys the importance of looking back into history to better grasp the integrity of our own views.Anyone with an interest in these subjects will find Religion and Science worthwhile and enjoyable.

Content and heading do not match
There is no doubt that Bertrand Russel is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. However, I was dissapointed in his book titled Religion and Science. Because my expectation was to learn in detail about the various battles between religion and science throughout history. Bertrand Russel talks about them briefly in the beginning of the book then devotes a major part of his book to a deep philosophy of science. In the beginning he skims over Galileo's conviction by the church for claiming that the Earth revolves around the sun not the other way around, Darwin's theory of Evolution versus Intelligent Design held by religious creationists, that Christianity deemed slicing of human cadavre for the study of anatomy a sin and in contrast with scientific psychological methods religion dealt with insanity through exorcism, claiming that the person was possesed. Although he had written this book in the 1930's those or similar conflicts between religion and science have been continuing since then and still do currently in the beginning of the 21st century.

All these are fine but the title and introduction of the book promise a much more detailed treatment of these subjects which is lacking. Bertrand Russel's analysis of the philosophy of science is no doubtbased on his profound knowledge of the subject. But the language he uses is too heavy and difficult to comprehend. It is a pity that great thinkers are not always great communicators ; they often do not have good writing skills. Great ideas should be communicated with a simple language to the general public. Otherwise the general public is deprived of their good ideas or has to learn about them not from the originator of the ideas but from other authors who have better writing skills. Albert Einstein also attempted to write a book about his theories of relativity for the general public but with such long sentences and bad writing that most people have to learn about his theories from better writers. I wish Bertrand Russel had written this book with a simpler structure. Being complicated is not a virtue, being simple is a virtue. I recommend a book by Edward de Bono named Simplicity that explains this point very well.

"Religion and Science" as opposed to "Religion vs. Science"
This book is the culmination of lengthy and grueling contemplations. It really reveals the author's depth of knowledge.

Religion and science are two major aspects of life. Religion (or to worship something more superior and powerful) has been around since the day humankind was created. In every epoch, in every land, human beings felt a need to believe in something which they can seek refuge when they are in need of protection, relief, solace and peace of mind. Whether you believe in a religion or not, it plays, perhaps, the biggest role in our lives everyday. Science, on the other hand, is the grand sum of all the endeavors that mankind expended in search of unraveling the mysteries of the universe.

In my opinion, the author could have named the book "Christianity and Science" as well, because he refers to other religions very briefly. I am sure he was not unaware of them, but to name a book with such a generic name, it entails a comprehensive treatise of all major religions. Although there are many common denominators among them, there are as well many stark contrasts. Furthermore, the historical development of major religions exhibit different features, distinct approaches and methodologies.

Having been raised in a Christian environment, it is not unusual for the author to bring forth such a book. At that time, the Islamic civilization was (and still is) in a state of decline and inertia. The concept of "religion and science" should be discussed in a forum with participants from all major religions. Hence, one will be able to produce a comprehensive treatise.

As for this book specifically, the chapter "Demonology and Medicine" is especially striking and includes very powerful stories. The outstanding difference between today's Western civilization and the Medieval Europe is characterized very successfully.In the latter chapters, the evolution of scientific thought in West is discussed with very illustrative examples. The notion of "relativity" in the sense that every human being perceives the Universe from a different angle with different assumptions and premises is argued and scrutinized very logically, effectively. This book really makes you ponder over the Universe in which you live, from many perspectives, with the ideas that shape it.

Personally, science and religions are not archnemeses. They are very powerful tools, which go parallel to each other, to perceive and comprehend the secrets of life.

Overall, a very powerful book for those who are not afraid of thinking!

Comments on 2 CD Audio...
Hard to believe that this Book (here in CD Audio Format) was written was back in 1932! Most of it is as current and relevent now as then. The CD is broken down in to several parts, including RELIGION AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD,RELIGION AND DISEASE,RELIGION AND EVOLUTION, RELIGION AND MYSTICISM. Always very polite and a bit understated, the CD begins commenting on Copernicus and Galileo, scientists contradicting the dogma of their times. Then onto Church responses to disease including 1600's Plagues, and Smallpox. The blame was put on demons and devils, not germs aor viruses. His comments on the Smallpox outbreak in 1880's Montreal are worth the price of the CD. Evolution and biology are discussed, and Russll has some interesting thoughts on mysticism. Very worthwhile in this CD format! ... Read more

Product Description
Emergence, largely ignored just thirty years ago, has become one of the liveliest areas of research in both philosophy and science. Fueled by advances in complexity theory, artificial life, physics, psychology, sociology, and biology and by the parallel development of new conceptual tools in philosophy, the idea of emergence offers a way to understand a wide variety of complex phenomena in ways that are intriguingly different from more traditional approaches. This reader collects for the first time in one easily accessible place classic writings on emergence from contemporary philosophy and science. The chapters, by such prominent scholars as John Searle, Stephen Weinberg, William Wimsatt, Thomas Schelling, Jaegwon Kim, Robert Laughlin, Daniel Dennett, Herbert Simon, Stephen Wolfram, Jerry Fodor, Philip Anderson, and David Chalmers, cover the major approaches to emergence. Each of the three sections ("Philosophical Perspectives," "Scientific Perspectives," and "Background and Polemics") begins with an introduction putting the chapters into context and posing key questions for further exploration. A bibliography lists more specialized material, and an associated website (http://mitpress.mit.edu/emergence) links to downloadable software and to other sites and publications about emergence.

Contributors: P. W. Anderson, Andrew Assad, Nils A. Baas, Mark A. Bedau, Mathieu S. Capcarrère, David Chalmers, James P. Crutchfield, Daniel C. Dennett, J. Doyne Farmer, Jerry Fodor, Carl Hempel, Paul Humphreys, Jaegwon Kim, Robert B. Laughlin, Bernd Mayer, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernest Nagel, Martin Nillson, Paul Oppenheim, Norman H. Packard, David Pines, Steen Rasmussen, Edmund M. A. Ronald, Thomas Schelling, John Searle, Robert S. Shaw, Herbert Simon, Moshe Sipper, Stephen Weinberg, William Wimsatt, and Stephen Wolfram ... Read more